[muuh-gnu]

There should be a way for the people to veto a law in a referendum, like in Switzerland. That way politicians would be more cautious passing laws which they know that the public probably won't like and probably will veto.

The current US system only provides "checks and balances" between political parties, so when one party cracks up (meaning, gets bought by special interests and turns against the people) we only can pray that the other party will come to the rescue. But when both parties agree and team up against the people, i.e. when there is a political market failure like in the case of SOPA (or ACTA), theres no way for the voters to defend themselves.

It is not another law that is needed, but a general possibility to override unpopular laws.

[rbanffy]

> a general possibility to override unpopular laws.

We have to be very careful with this. Sometimes a very popular law is exactly what you don't want. There are vast areas where a law mandating the teaching of creationist superstition in science classes would be immensely popular while a law forbidding it would be very unpopular.

[muuh-gnu]

> superstition popular while a law forbidding it would be very unpopular

Having a legal way for the population to defend themselves against bad (purchased) laws does not in any way imply that you would immediately turn into a theocracy. Switzerland has had them for hundreds of years and is still sane.

On the other hand, having a opaque 2-party dictatorship like the US has no does not somehow prevent religion to have a major influence on politics and laws. You have it on your money (in god we trust), you have it in your schools (one nation united under god), you have it in your courtrooms and presidential inaugurations (so help me god), etc.

Introducting a switzerland-like mechanism for more checks and balances wouldnt change much, it would just make it easier to prevent autocratic decisions like SOPA, Iraq war, etc.

[jules]

Such is democracy, the least bad system we have. Overall it would probably lead to laws that are more in your interest, as opposed to in the interest of people who lobby for laws.

[rimantas]

Democracy is not simply "the rule of majority".

[mikecane]

Democracy is exactly that. Which is why our Founders gave us a democratic republic instead.

[rimantas]

Nope. It is not exactly „the rule of the majority“. It is the rule of the majority with respect to the interests of minority.

[sgaither]

That hasn't worked super well in California, from many accounts.

[anamax]

> That hasn't worked super well in California, from many accounts.

Most of those accounts assert that a significant fraction of CA's spending is mandated by referendum and that CA legislature shouldn't take referendums into account when it does a budget. (The latter is how you get to "referendums are responsible for CA's deficit.")

Both of those assertions are wrong, no matter how often they're stated.

[jacoblyles]

Having referendums only to reject laws would fix many of the difficulties. No new spending should come from referendum.